On Sat, Dec 29, 2018 at 12:01 PM <[email protected]> wrote: > On Saturday, December 29, 2018 at 12:28:58 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: >> >> On Sat, Dec 29, 2018 at 11:17 AM John Clark <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 4:53 PM Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >> If the creation of the inflaton required conditions that existed >>>>> when the universe was 10^-44 seconds old and inflation had decayed away >>>>> when it was 10^-35 seconds old then the particle associated with the >>>>> inflation field would have decayed away too and we wouldn't expect to see >>>>> it today even at places where we can reproduce conditions the universe was >>>>> in when it was 10^-17 seconds old. If it still existed it would still be >>>>> strongly connected to regular matter but we could not detect it but the >>>>> universe could and would still be expanding at an exponential rate and >>>>> galaxies stars and planets would not exist, we couldn't detect it >>>>> because we wouldn't exist either. >>>>> >>>> >>>> *> Very good reasons for saying that no such field or particle exists, >>>> or have ever existed.* >>>> >>> >>> Or has ever existed? How do you figure that? >>> >> >> If they had ever existed, they would couple strongly to ordinary matter, >> and we would see such inflatons now. We don't, which is a very good reason >> for saying that they do not exist -- now or ever. >> >>> >>> *> I hope you understand the difference between thermal fluctuations and >>>> quantum fluctuations....* >>>> >>> >>> The thermal fluctuations that have been actually observed in the Cosmic >>> Microwave Background Radiation is consistent with them being caused by >>> random quantum fluctuations. Do you have an explanation for these >>> variations in temperature that does not involve random quantum >>> fluctuations? >>> >> >> There are no such things as such quantum fluctuations: such fluctuations >> would be local, and violate energy conservation. >> > > > *If you measure the energy of a region repeatedly, the measurements will > vary due to the UP. How is this a violation of energy conservation? It > would be if it were explained by "borrowing" of energy for short times, but > these measurements in fact vary, so IMO it's not a violation of energy > conservation unless one appeals to the fallacious explanation of > "borrowing". Moreover, how can these variations, or fluctuations in energy > be independent of temperature fluctuations as you seem to suggest? AG* >
Variations between the results of different measurements are OK because that merely reflects a superposition of different energy states. Fluctuations absent repeated measurements are not OK. Thermal fluctuations are just the result of the distribution of different energies between particles in a gas or the like. Bruce -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
